[nige1]

gnasher, on Nov 28 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

The point is that a hand-type can be so rare that the an implict agreement cannot exist.

I hold a different view about the hand under discussion ...

• Players from one team opened 1♠ on ♠ Axxxxxx, ♥ -- ♦ Kxxxx ♣ x .. We don't know whether they were aware of the Orange Book regulation.
  
  
• The players in the other team would have opened this hand 1♠ (rather than 3♠) had they not tried to comply with the regulation.
  
  
• In the absence of the regulation, I would open it 1♠ too, because it seems to satisfy the normal requirements of a one-opener.
  
  
• The fact that none of us may have met this particular hand before seems irrelevant. IMO, in the absence of the regulation, all five of us would have an understanding to open 1♠ on such a hand.

gnasher, on Nov 28 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

The Orange Book contains 179 instances of the word "agreement".  Are you suggesting that after each one they should insert a definition of the word?

No

[gnasher]

nige1, on Nov 28 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

in the absence of the regulation, all five of us would have an understanding to open 1♠ on such a hand.

By "understanding", I assume you mean "agreement". If so, how would you have formed that agreement?

[nige1]

nige1, on Nov 28 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

in the absence of the regulation, all five of us would have an understanding to open 1♠ on such a hand.

gnasher, on Nov 28 2009, 06:07 PM, said:

By "understanding", I assume you mean "agreement".  If so, how would you have formed that agreement?

I think I've already anwered that ...

nige1, on Nov 28 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

In the absence of the regulation, I would open it 1♠ too, because it seems to satisfy the normal requirements of a one-opener.

I think that would be the view of all five of us and that many players would have the same agreement (all assuming no contrary regulation). I've posted a poll to see what others think.

[gnasher]

nige1, on Nov 29 2009, 12:49 AM, said:

I think I've already anwered that ...

Perhaps you have, but if so I have no idea when or where you did so.

[paulg]

I agree and disagree with both of you.

On nige1's comments about the 4NT opener, I would be confident to open this with any UK expert safe in the knowledge that he will show specific aces in response. I would regard this as an implicit agreement due to our (common) upbringing. I would be far less confident with a foreigner as I have no idea what is standard in their country, so I would regard it as a gamble and not an implicit agreement.

On the hand in question, I would expect an expert to recognise that some will open this hand 1♠. But, despite nige1's 5/5 match poll, I would not expect this to be universal and hence I would not regard it as an implicit agreement.

Paul

[nige1]

cardsharp, on Nov 29 2009, 05:41 AM, said:

I agree and disagree with both of you.

On nige1's comments about the 4NT opener, I would be confident to open this with any UK expert safe in the knowledge that he will show specific aces in response.  I would regard this as an implicit agreement due to our (common) upbringing. I would be far less confident with a foreigner as I have no idea what is standard in their country, so I would regard it as a gamble and not an implicit agreement.

On the hand in question, I would expect an expert to recognise that some will open this hand 1♠. But, despite nige1's 5/5 match poll, I would not expect this to be universal and hence I would not regard it as an implicit agreement.

Paul

Until I read Gnasher and BlueJak, I would have expected no English player, who agreed with the Orange Book regulation, to open 1♠ on the hand under discussion. I hypothesised a situation where such a regulation did not exist or was unknown to the players.

IMO Paul's "universal" is an unrealistic criterion. On hands in magazine bidding polls, life-time partners often find different bids. I feel that it quite sufficient that a player considers a bid to comply with his normal agreements in the absence of contrary regulation. For example, holding 5-5 in the black suits, you may decide to open 1♠ but perhaps 1♣ is another possibility within your partnership understanding.

[nige1]

nige1, on Nov 29 2009, 12:49 AM, said:

I think I've already anwered that ...

gnasher, on Nov 29 2009, 04:45 AM, said:

Perhaps you have, but if so I have no idea when or where you did so.

Then I'm afraid we must agree to differ

[nige1]

Extending of StevenG's argument): Suppose a group of players ...

• Agree to open rule of 18 hands (except where specifically forbidden by regulation).
  
• Read and resolve to abide by the Orange Book.
  
• Each, independently, read this thread, understanding it to advise them that it is OK to open at the one-level with
  ♠Axxxxxx ♥ ♦Kxxxx ♣x (and, presumably, with similar hands?).
  
• In practice, subsequently, without discussion, do open such hands at the one-level.

Then ....

• Do they have a special understanding within the meaning of the law?
  
• If they win matches by opening such hands when their less sophisticated opponents do not, and their opponents complain, then how would you rule?

This may seem a lot of fuss about putting the cat out; but IMO, a generic problem with system-regulation is that it often handicaps the law-abiding and rewards those who ignore it.

[gnasher]

nige1, on Nov 29 2009, 02:07 PM, said:

Until I read Gnasher and BlueJak, I would have expected no English player, who agreed with the Orange Book regulation, to open 1♠ on the hand under discussion.

Why? The regulation doesn't prohibit such an opening; it prohibits an agreement to open the hand 1♠.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Nov 29 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

Why?  The regulation doesn't prohibit such an opening; it prohibits an agreement to open the hand 1♠.

If, in the absence of the regulation, 1♠ would comply with your partnership methods then, I think you do have such an understanding.
Put it another way: suppose you would often open 1♠ if you were unaware of the regulation. Does ignorance the regulation excuse your action?

[cherdanno]

Is there anyone who often opens at the one-level with a 7-5 and an ace and a king?

[nige1]

After a couple of days the poll in the BBO expert forum about opening this hand, as suggested by aguahombre, shows...

• 7 Pass.
  
• 5 for 1♠.
  
• 1 for 2♠.
  
• 3 for 3♠.
  
• Also 4 would have voted for 4♠ had I included that as an option.

I'm afraid that these results tend to support Gnasher's view rather than mine Particularly as BBOers are younger than the average Bridge player, and so more likely to open with few high cards.

[nige1]

cherdanno, on Nov 29 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

Is there anyone who often opens at the one-level with a 7-5 and an ace and a king?

I hoped the meaning would be clear in context: "If you held a hand like this, would you often open at the one-level in the absence of restrictions?".
I believed most players would often do so but the poll seems to indicate otherwise

[gnasher]

nige1, on Nov 30 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

I hoped the meaning would be clear in context: "If you held a hand like this, would you often open at the one-level in the absence of restrictions?".

I wouldn't hold a hand like this often enough to be able to tell you whether I'd often open it at the one-level.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Nov 30 2009, 08:23 AM, said:

I wouldn't hold a hand like this often enough to be able to tell you whether I'd often open it at the one-level.

I don't remember much partnership discussion about specific freaks; but we do have generic understandings. For instance: to open most rule of 19 hands, at the one-level if appropriate and not forbidden by law. We don't make special exceptions for specific shapes (like 7-5 rather than, say, 7-6, 6-5, 7-4, or 5-5). But I now accept that others do. And belatedly, I am trying to accept the idea that which 0-7 HCP hands you may open depends (inter alia) on director judgement related to their frequency.

[mjj29]

nige1, on Nov 30 2009, 08:54 AM, said:

but we do have generic understandings. For instance: to open most rule of 19 hands, at the one-level if appropriate and not forbidden by law.

This is what CamHenry and I also do. I would not open that hand 1S as I believe it is illegal to do so. On the other hand, we have a system which shows that (and any other weak 2-suiter) very well as a weak 2-suiter anyway, so it would be more appropriate as that. Regardless, if I held that in a partnership without such a sequence, I would not open it 1S.

[awm]

I think the argument made by gnasher and cherdanno is trying to dodge the issue. Sure, this is a rare hand type. But every hand is a rare hand. Most of us have general agreements about what makes an opening bid. Sure, the general agreements do not say "we open this specific hand and not that specific hand" and may not even say anything specific about 7-5 hands with seven high card points.

The problem is that one could certainly have a rule like "we open on the rule of 19" or "we open all seven-loser hands" that would seem to encompass this hand (as well as many other hands). If we have such an agreement and then open this hand, it seems like we have an agreement to open this hand, even though we may never have held a 7-5 hand before (and certainly have never held this specific hand before).

If our agreement is "we open on the rule of 19, but not if we have less than 8 hcp" and then we open this hand... is it really a violation of agreements? Or did we just throw the "less than 8 hcp" part in to appease the EBU and then ignore it? Seems suspicious to me.

Of course, this problem comes up a lot when people have an agreement that comes right up against the threshold of legality, then choose to "upgrade" a hand that's barely on the wrong side of that threshold. They can claim that it's "not their agreement to open this hand" and that "this hand is particularly unusual for some reason" but it seems so close to their official agreement that it may as well be.

[gnasher]

nige1, on Nov 30 2009, 02:54 PM, said:

And belatedly, I am trying to accept the idea that which 0-7 HCP hands you may open depends (inter alia) on director judgement related to their frequency.

Nobody has said that.

And why do you keep talking about what you "may open"? You're allowed to open any hand that you want to. The regulation restricts agreements, not actions.

[bluejak]

If you held that hand, what action would your partner expect you to take? If the answer is to open 1♠ you have an illegal agreement. If the answer is - as it is with my partnership - "How on earth would I know what she would do?" then you have no illegal agreement.

There is some confusion here between what anyone might do and what is allowed. What is allowed is clear.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Nov 30 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

And why do you keep talking about what you "may open"?  You're allowed to open any hand that you want to.  The regulation restricts agreements, not actions.

Unless a player admits to an illegal agreement, actions are the main evidence available to the director. If a partnership have a secret illegal understanding that they don't act on in any way, that seems to present less of a practical problem.